Stubberfield v Lippiatt

The matter before the court involved the plaintiff, Stubberfield, who sought a declaration that a contract was void and sought an injunction to prevent the defendants, Lippiatt, from enforcing it. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff alleged that the contract was entered into under duress and sought to have it set aside. The defendants contested the claim, asserting that the contract was valid and enforceable.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the contract was voidable due to duress. The court had to determine if the plaintiff had proven that the defendants exerted illegitimate pressure which coerced the plaintiff into entering the contract. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the contract was voidable as a matter of law and equity, and if the appropriate remedy would be to grant an injunction.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the circumstances under which the contract was executed. It assessed whether the plaintiff had demonstrated that the pressure applied by the defendants was sufficient to vitiate consent. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite level of pressure that would render the contract voidable. Consequently, the court held that the contract was not voidable due to duress and dismissed the plaintiff’s application for a declaration and injunction. The court also ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the application.